Iraq Issues Statement Objecting to U.S. Airstrikes and Arming Kurds

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:42:00 AM EST
Tags: Iraq, ISIS, Kurds (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Apparently, not all is copacetic between the Iraqi Armed Forces and the United States. In President Obama's August 8 letter to Congress advising he had authorized air strikes in Iraq, he wrote:

These actions are being undertaken in coordination with the Iraqi government.

Iraqi news reports that on Sunday, the Office of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces in Iraq issued a statement of protest, both as to the air strikes and supplying military equipment to the Kurds.

Baghdad (AIN) –The office of the Commanding General of the Iraqi Armed Forces announced that "The Iraqi Government did not give permission for any military plane to violate the Iraqi space," in a sign to the US airstrikes targeting the shelters of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant near Erbil and Mosul.

[More...]

A statement by the office received by AIN cited "During the last few days, we noticed violation of some military air-jets for Iraqi space and handing over of military equipment without permission of the Iraqi Government," which is a sign for providing the Kurdish peshmerga with western weapons.

The statement added "We welcome the supportive stances of the international community for Iraq in its war against terrorism but we assert the necessity of respecting the sovereignty of Iraq."

In addition, it issued a warning:

The Office of the Adjutant General of the Armed Forces warned all countries from exploiting the security situation in northern Iraq to penetrate the national sovereignty.

The office noted “We warn all the countries of the exploitation of the security situation in northern Iraq to penetrate the national sovereignty and providing local points with arms and ammunition without our consent.”

< Michael Brown Autopsy by Dr. Baden Released | U.S. Adds ISIS Spokesman al-Adnani to Global Terrorist List >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Iraq Issues Statement Objecting to U.S. Airstrikes and Arming Kurds | 56 comments (56 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Once again... (none / 0) (#1)
by lentinel on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:49:59 AM EST

President Obama:

Office of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces in Iraq:

"The Iraqi Government did not give permission for any military plane to violate the Iraqi space," in a sign to the US airstrikes targeting the shelters of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant near Erbil and Mosul.

So, once again, either our President is lying to us, or he doesn't know what the he!l he's doing. Another possibility is a mixture of the two - and he is just doing what he is being told to do, and saying what he is being told to say.

Another interpretation, which I believe may be the case, is that the administration will do whatever it wants, for however long it wants, in order to maintain its hold on Iraq and its resources.
If the government of Iraq, or one of its leaders gets in the way, well... we have ways of dealing with that.

Bottom line - 6 years after the election of 2008 - eight years after the midterm election of 2006 in which a clear mandate was issued by the American people to get out of Iraq, we are still in Iraq and we are still in Afghanistan.

And I do not believe that Obama will not resort to ground troops.
He might find a euphemism for them, like the warhorse, "advisors", but bombings can't do it. The people who live there can retreat and wait it out. Occupation by Americans and/or their Iraqi surrogates is what our future holds the way things are going - and will remain so until the mindset of our leadership changes, we realize that we have gained nothing by our actions in Iraq, and we decide to leave - as we finally did in Vietnam.

When I think of the resources, human and financial that continue to be squandered in these Bush era enterprises, contrasted with the lack of medical care for our veterans, for developing new clean sources of energy, infrastructure, schools, humane prisons and police forces... Well, with the political leadership stuck in the mud as it is, there isn't much point in thinking about it.

Or (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by jbindc on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:56:39 AM EST

Because of the dynamics of the situation, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces in Iraq is saying this for plausible deniability and to save face and look strong to his constiutents in his state's media. Did you not give the option that he could be the one lying? Why do you assume that it's Obama lying?

And while I wouldn't competely put my trust in the TV show "The West Wing" - they did this stuff all the time (and was written by, and after consultation with, people who actually worked in the real West Wing at the highest levels and saw this stuff all the time). The messages were coordinated between the two nations. You think Obama didn't know Iraqi officials were going to say this??


I wouldn't be surprised, but I have to say... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Dadler on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:47:57 AM EST

...your WEST WING reference left me kind of confused (your disclaimer aside), in that it's the same sort of ego-driven, prone to lying to cover their own asses, corrupt to the core party players lacking any and all political or other kind of imagination, who both consulted on that show AND are running this real sh*t show. IOW, my utterly skeptical inclination is the opposite: I wouldn't trust them to help an old lady across the street without leaving her stranded in the middle so they could go suck some more corporate joint.


Sure (none / 0) (#6)
by jbindc on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:57:37 AM EST

But my point was that how do we know it was only Obama that was lying or are there things which can't be discussed at this time and this is what has to happen by both sides while diplomacy is trying to be carried out?


While (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Politalkix on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:49:45 AM EST

green26 and lentinel are huffing and puffing for not doing enough or doing too much in Iraq, a lot of things are happening there. ISIS is getting pounded by Syria in Raqqa link and other places inside Iraq by Iran (hear that green 26?), Kurdish and Iraqi forces have recaptured Mosul dam with the help of US airstrikes and US and UK special forces are hunting down the self proclaimed Caliph who may be the first Caliph in the history of Islam to be known as the "Hidden Caliph" because he has gone into hiding.

The Iraqis are therefore working with the US and the protestations by the Iraqi general may be for some domestic public consumption only. Not only that, it is very likely that US and British special forces are already working in strategic collaboration with Iran inside Iraq at this time

and Prime Minister Cameron wants a more overt alliance with Iran.


I know that Iran has supported (none / 0) (#11)
by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:40:58 AM EST

the Syrian regime all along, and has provided various military assistance, but is there evidence that Iran is "pounding" ISIS in Syria? Or, is there evidence that Iran is actually pounding ISIS in Iraq, as opposed to providing significant military assistance to the Iraqis?

I have not read that that Iran provided military assistance to the Kurds and Yazidis? Has Iran done that? I haven't read that Iran has been involved in taking back Mosul dam. Has it?

I believe I read a month or two ago that Iran and Russia had supplied or would supply planes to the Iraqis, but has Iran actually flown the planes to attack ISIS? Don't know, just asking.

I'm fine with Obama's current level of support. Just thought he should have done it sooner.


You are now fine with Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:00:08 PM EST

current level of support but he should have done it sooner?

Really?? All these posts and that's it....he should have done what he is dooing sooner? We have to read all these posts with McCain this and Mccain that as your sources, and Obama is weak this and that....and he should have done sooner what he is doing now?

Talk about armchair quarterbacking. I doubt anyone here has the experience or information to make that judgment.....Big picture issues we can make judgment....but the timing of airstrikes???

My oh my.

What Hillary Said.... (none / 0) (#24)
by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:08:39 PM EST

Not entirely (none / 0) (#28)
by Politalkix on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:39:13 PM EST

HRC is likely more pro Sunni monarchies (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, etc) than BHO and Cameron. Like the Saudi monarchy, her antipathy towards Syria and Iran is more extreme than that of the President and the British Prime Minister. At this time, both BHO and Cameron see Sunni extremism (eg ISIS) as a greater threat to the region and the world than Iran. BHO and Cameron see Iran as a countervailing force in the region that keeps the balance of power without the need for constant meddling by the US; they think that Iran can be used as a limited strategic partner to solve certain problems in the ME and want to engage that country. HRC's attitude towards Iran is more in line with the Saudi monarchy and Israel.


Cliff Notes (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:47:27 PM EST

What Green26 appears to be supporting is the cliff note version that Hillary said we would not be in this trouble had Obama done more to stem ISIS in 2011.


: And I like Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 04:59:35 PM EST

But just exactly what Sunni Extremist test would she have administered to individuals before handing them weapons?

Many of my posts are intended (none / 0) (#26)
by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:07:16 PM EST

to show some, like yourself, what the facts actually are. The level of incorrect information at times is surprising, as is the refusal to recognize established facts.

Obama will likely have to do more, but doing what he seems to be doing now is what I've been saying since about June.

McCain isn't my source for hardly anything, but in looking for information and support for facts, McCain sometimes has some hard information. Most of my sources are the NY Times and Washington Post, with occasional other good or comprehensive articles from other publications.


Showing me what the facts (none / 0) (#27)
by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:15:51 PM EST

actually are? Yes, I believe you think you are here to educate all of Talk Left so it becomes "MiddleLeft."

This is a standard conservative conceit--that liberals need to be educated, and only you know the facts.

Your comment is absurdly condescending. And wrong.

Your arguments and the few cites you do have, have not added anything of substance. For one, I have heard it all before. You rely on the New York Times? kinda, sorta. You cite Op-Eds written by conservatives? Or quote the New York Times when it quotes a conservative critique? The linchpin support of your arguments in the end usually comes from McCain--the other citations are pretty much vanilla boilerplate. To provide a patina of objectivity when the argument comes straight from Lindsey McCain's mouth.


It's kinda hilarious too (5.00 / 5) (#31)
by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:47:50 PM EST

He doesn't have the facts, I don't have the facts, nobody without the highest security clearances and the need to know has the facts. Very few journalists visit them much either at the moment...you have to be on the ground in Iraq to be able to have any facts. Without the right equipment your ability to gather or even have the facts you need to make Presidential decisions is zero too. Who has battlefield facts? Joint Special Operations

With those facts, the President develops plans and strategies, and then strategically implements them.

Whining because the President is employing his very hard earned strategy that has American lives on the line instead of just attacking someone does not constitute....this was my plan all along and the Kenyan Usurper was dragging his feet like a coward :)


MT, are you now supporting Obama's (none / 0) (#34)
by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:54:48 PM EST

decisions to step up airstrikes and provide some other military support in Iraq?


: I am (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 04:47:47 PM EST

I have no reason to not trust his judgement at this point. I also trusted his judgement to not give aid in the ISIS situation until Maliki removed himself.
The truth though is that YOU don't have all the facts to make Presidential decisions on Iraq, and I'm not sure you understand strategy much other than pounding nails and everything easily looks like a nail to you.

Facts are facts (none / 0) (#29)
by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:40:06 PM EST

They are not opinions. I admit that I don't like it when some, like yourself, ignore facts. Again, almost nothing I say comes from McCain. I assume that because you can't counter much of what I say or provide, you resort to trying to undercut statements by incorrectly linking it to McCain or Fox News or whatever.

Biden is not a conservative. Hillary Clinton is not a conservative. People like former Secretary Gates and C. Rice are credible and honest, in my view. Former ambassadors to Iraq are usually credible and have good info. Former senior level officials are often credible, altho sometimes not. Bob Woodward is believable, in my view. Former generals and joint chiefs of staff usually have good information, but I take their opinions with a grain of salt.

Do you think Biden was lying when he said he thought the US could get a new SOFA with Iraq?


Oh My Goodness (5.00 / 5) (#33)
by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:49:43 PM EST

Facts are Facts (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Politalkix on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:56:34 PM EST

(1)The Iraqi people wanted US troops out of Iraq, Maliki wanted US troops out of Iraq.

(2) The vast majority of Americans wanted US troops out of Iraq.

(3) BHO campaigned on getting US troops out of Iraq, he got elected because Americans wanted US troops out of Iraq and did not agree with McCain.

You seem to have a problem understanding these simple facts or accepting the results of the mandate that the President got from Americans to get troops out of Iraq.

BHO is the President of the USA, not of Iraq; neither is he the President of the world. Our military engagement in other regions of the world should only occur when it affects us directly. ISIS threats that you are projecting is way out in the future (even if we assume what you are saying will happen which we do not believe to be the case). From that perspective, even the action the President is taking now is very pro-active in its content.


I have never disagree with your points (none / 0) (#41)
by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:29:29 PM EST

1 - 3. So what? US policy should not be based on polls. US policy should be based on what's right and what's in the best interests of the US/West. I doubt that US polls now support going back into Iraq (but haven't looked at any recently), but Obama has done just that.

Scores of experts are saying that ISIS is a major threat and is or will be a threat to the US/West. I onced listed about 15 of them. Lots of former ambassadors, former military, and others. Hillary believes they are a threat. Even Obama has said ISIS is a major threat.

At some point, you need to start coming out of denial and look at reality, is my view (and hope).


What is right as judged by whom? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:16:27 PM EST

The view of the public about war and peace is absolutely important.

So, if it is not the public who gets to decide, then who decides what is right? Lindsey McCain?


Yes, the views of the people about war (none / 0) (#51)
by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:57:17 PM EST

and peace are important. However, in our system of government (as you surely must know), the people elect the president, and the president makes the decisions, sometimes with the consent or direction of Congress. Sometimes the president makes decisions not popular with the people. Good presidents exercise leadership and do what's right for the country, without undue reliance of polls.


: You are wrong again Green26 (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Politalkix on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:18:29 AM EST

It is very clear that the President totally disagrees with you about what's right for the country when it comes to involvement in the middle east. He did what he thought was right for the country and exercised leadership. And he also happened to have the support of majority of Americans in this respect.
You are just plainly wrong!

: So, Obama gets to decide (none / 0) (#53)
by MKS on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:09:37 AM EST

what is right?
Lord love a duck.

No, I do not think Biden was lying (none / 0) (#39)
by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:36:11 PM EST

But his prediction turned out to be wrong. I think if you were to ask Biden, he would say he assumed Maliki would have agreed to immunity.

It takes two to tango and Maliki did not want to.....You guys are reduced to saying Obama should have asked him to dance in a nicer way. Or whatever your hypothetical speculation says he should have done differently.


If you believe Biden, why don't (none / 0) (#40)
by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:24:19 PM EST

you believe McCain and Graham, who talked to Maliki on various occasions? I hope it's not because all dems are truthful and all repubs are not truthful.


: Oy, apples and oranges (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:44:06 PM EST

Because Biden was making statements of general optimism.....And McCain has an axe to grind and was making specific claims based on what would have happened if only his advice were adhered to.
And, Biden can be honest, but just guess wrong. I never said I agreed with Biden that a SOFA was sure to happen.

: Because Biden wasn't saying ... (none / 0) (#45)
by Yman on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:51:12 PM EST

... what Graham and McCain (and you) were claiming - that the SOFA negotiations failed because of Obama's lack of effort in (re)negotiating an agreement.

What a ridiculous, false dichotomy (none / 0) (#44)
by Yman on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:48:42 PM EST

Do you think Biden was lying when he said he thought the US could get a new SOFA with Iraq?

Biden could have made that statement for any number of reasons. Perhaps he genuinely believed the Iraqis would back down from their refusal to include immunity for American troops in a new SOFA. Perhaps he underestimated resistance among the Iraqi populace/politicians to a new SOFA. Perhaps he relied too heavily on Maliki's assurances that Maliki could deliver political support for a new SOFA. Whatever the reason was, it doesn't matter. Biden thought he could get a new SOFA (or was trying to create the appearance that he could) and he was wrong.

Any other completely irrelevant points you want to make?


It's nice to see some of you (2.00 / 1) (#47)
by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:49:37 PM EST

finally admitting that the US could have changed the Bush pull out agreement in order to keep troops in Iraq, and worked on getting a new agreement (at least to some extent) to keep some troops in Iraq. Some progress from saying Obama's hands were tied because of the pullout agreement. It's hard to have a discussion with some of you, because you refuse to recognize basic facts. It's taken about 3 or 4 weeks to get the doubters to this point.

Yes, Biden could have thought all those things. Again, more progress, as some of the posters wouldn't even admit that getting the agreement changed to allow troops to stay was possible.

I must admit that I think it's pretty funny that MKS thinks McCain/Graham were lying when they said they thought the new agreement could have been achieved with Maliki/Iraq, but believes Biden when he said essentially the same thing. It's hard to argue with that type of (il)logic.

I don't recall what Yman's positions or statements were, so none of this is directed at Yman.


You would be less confusing (5.00 / 0) (#48)
by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:59:47 PM EST

if you would address me directly by "Replying" to my posts.

You put words into my mouth. You have this weird attempt to equate Biden's prediction with Lindsey McCain's critique after the fact. Rather, than admit that he (Lindsey McCain) was wrong, they blame Obama.....

If Lindsey McCain were to say they predicted a new SOFA but due to Maliki's instrsigence, there as no agreement, then maybe they would be on a part with
Biden....

Your arroganace that you are getting us anywhere is ridiculous. Actually, I am begining to believe you are just obtuse....

I wasn't addressing your post or posts. (none / 0) (#50)
by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:50:20 PM EST

I was addressing a series of new ones and some old ones, in one post.


Sure, you were (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by MKS on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:08:20 AM EST

You commented on my post using my name here....

Not exactly honest comment by you.


Yes, yours was one of the series of posts (2.00 / 1) (#55)
by Green26 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:18:53 AM EST

I was "addressing". Note that I didn't rank your post very high. Also, I was laughing at your post(s) more than addressing it.


The way you mischaraterize and misstate ... (5.00 / 0) (#56)
by Yman on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:22:32 AM EST

... the posts of others - as well as Biden's comments - you should be the last person to laugh at the comments of others.

You cited Graham and McCain for the proposition that Obama could have had a new SOFA, but didn't get one because he didn't try hard enough. Then you claim Biden said "essentially the same thing". That's funny.

You state a truism (agreements can be renegotiated) as though someone is denying it, when no one is. Then you ignore the fact that the Iraqis wouldn't budge on immunity for US troops, which (rightfully) killed any prospect of a new agreement. Also funny.

You also claimed that you didn't believe we were required to withdraw our troops under the terms of the 2008 SOFA negotiated by Bush. That's seriously funny.

Guess you're just a funny guy.


Feel free to provide more specifics. (none / 0) (#58)
by Green26 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 10:10:37 AM EST

Sorry, but your broad statements are not sufficient for me.

I cited McCain/Graham's statements for 2 different things: that it was possible to change the 2008 Bush pull out agreement with Iraq (which Biden thought could and would be done), and that Obama had been half-hearted about changing the agreement (which I never said Biden had said). Biden and McCain/Graham had both said about the same thing about being optimistic that a new agreement could be reached.

Multiple posters have said the 2008 pull out agreement tied Obama's hands so that troops couldn't be kept in Iraq past the pull out date. The posters indicated that Obama had no choice. They have refused to admit that the agreement could have been changed. That's not correct.

It looks to me that, at least at one point, the US wanted approval of the immunity agreement by parliament, but Maliki wanted to agree to the immunity without taking it to parliament. Note that the US is apparently currently operating in Iraq with only oral assurances of immunity and without a written agreement. See the article I will cite below.

I have said that the US could have renegotiated the 2008 pull-out agreement, and kept troops in Iraq. I know what the words of the 2008 agreement said. See below quotes.

The following quotes are from a Washington Post column.

"The Bush team had always intended that there be a follow-up to the SOFA that was in place while it remained in office. Multiple senior officials from the Bush team have confirmed this over the years. Clinton's own actions in attempting to negotiate a follow-on deal were the direct result of that understanding."

"Eric Edelman, the undersecretary of defense for policy in the Bush administration, told Right Turn: "Yes, the SOFA agreement set a Dec. 31 2011 withdrawal date. But everyone assumed, and many senior Iraqis told us at the time, that a follow on residual force would be necessary. Then Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul Qadr, for example, said publicly that without a continued US presence it would be ten years before the Iraqis could control their own air space." He recalled, "Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker, who negotiated the SOFA is on the record saying the deadline was set but everyone assumed that the SOFA would be superseded by a follow-on agreement that would allow for some continued US presence the size and composition of which was to be determined."


: That's okay (none / 0) (#59)
by Yman on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:25:41 PM EST

I can live with your opinion that my resume isn't sufficient for you.
As far as you characterization of what multiple posters are saying, it's completely inaccurate. No one has claimed an agreement can't be modified. What they (and I) have pointed out is that, in the absence of a new agreement, we had to pull out of Iraq because of the Bush SOFA, something you finally acknowledge. The Iraqis wouldn't budge on the issue of immunity for US troops, so any deal died. Therefore, we had to pull out as required by Bush's SOFA.
As far as what the Bush appointees were hoping for after the fact, that's amusing. Next time you negotiate an agreement to buy a house, try blaming your spouse when you have to abide by the terms of your contract and tell her you expected her to renegotiate a better deal. Let me know how that works out for you.

BTW (none / 0) (#57)
by Yman on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:26:11 AM EST

It's nice to see some of you finally admitting that the US could have changed the Bush pull out agreement in order to keep troops in Iraq, and worked on getting a new agreement (at least to some extent) to keep some troops in Iraq. Some progress from saying Obama's hands were tied because of the pullout agreement. It's hard to have a discussion with some of you, because you refuse to recognize basic facts. It's taken about 3 or 4 weeks to get the doubters to this point.

If you actually believe that BS, the Learning Annex offers some basic reading comprehension classes.


yman stop the personal insults (none / 0) (#60)
by Jeralyn on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:12:21 PM EST

like "Any other completely irrelevant points you want to make?" Your comments with sarcastic insults are uncalled for. Disagree with Green 26 but don't attack him.


OK.. (none / 0) (#3)
by lentinel on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:25:34 AM EST

You think Obama didn't know Iraqi officials were going to say this??

If he did know, it still is a misrepresentation of ongoing reality thrust upon the American people by its political leadership.

Either he did know, or he didn't know.

Either way, we lose.


Or (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by jbindc on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:30:12 AM EST

There are a bazillion other reasons why it was politcally or diplomatically told to us until now.


: Fine. (none / 0) (#14)
by lentinel on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:51:06 AM EST

Let's just leave it to them.
They know what they're doing.

My view is that jbindc's post (none / 0) (#10)
by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:31:02 AM EST

is probably the case. The words of the Iraqi protest over airspace seemed very mild. The cooperation between the Iraqi special forces, Kurd army and the US planes/drones at the Mosul dam area, are a strong indication that the US is not bombing without Iraqi knowledge and consent.


See, for example, Pakistan. (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:48:19 AM EST

The New "Baghdad Bob" Reports (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:22:46 AM EST

Well apparently the Iraqi Army spokesman is in cahoots with Obama and lying too... hahahahaha

This just out:

BADRIYA, Iraq -- Iraqi and Kurdish forces claimed Monday that they ejected Islamic State fighters from a strategically vital dam in northern Iraq, after waves of U.S. airstrikes scattered the radical Islamist militants in the biggest push yet to reverse their blitz through the country.
Fighting continued on the western bank of the lake at the head of the Mosul Dam, and government troops were unable to enter the facility because it was booby-trapped by the retreating militants, officials said.
But the officials claimed that Islamic State fighters were on the run after the offensive launched by Iraqi special forces and Kurdish pesh merga fighters backed by U.S. air support on Sunday.
Lt. Gen. Qassem Atta, an Iraqi army spokesman, told journalists in Baghdad that the joint operation "fully liberated the dam" and that the troops "hoisted the Iraqi flag over it."

WaPo


Shorter Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:49:55 AM EST

Thanks for the help but we are really not comfortable with your saving of our a$$es. Again.


Quite The Contrary, IMO (none / 0) (#17)
by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:54:09 AM EST

Would you not say (none / 0) (#18)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:55:27 AM EST

The "objecting" statement was for domestic consumption?


Not Sure (none / 0) (#19)
by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:00:23 PM EST

But the issuing office seems sketchy, considering that there is a Iraqi Army spokesman, who just spoke.

Malaki has very recently agreed to leave office, and that was not without a fight, and a new PM has to form a government in 30 days from when Malaki said he would step down.

So I think that there may be some chaos and less than clear messages coming out of the Office of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces..

don't you think it odd that the Commander in Chief did not issue the statement himself? Namely Malaki himself?


The WaPo article also said (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:09:58 PM EST

On Sunday, two U.S. officials said that the Obama administration had agreed to requests from the Iraqi government to help its forces retake control of the dam because of its strategic importance.

Chaos seems a good word.


To be more clear (none / 0) (#21)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:46:19 PM EST

My first comment was not really a criticism of the govt. I don't want Iraq to need our help. I'm pretty sure the president doesn't want Iraq to need our help. The fact that the might request it while trying to act like they don't want it might actually in an odd way be a hopeful sign.

Who knows.


Well (none / 0) (#22)
by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:50:23 PM EST

It would be an interesting turn of events if we became allies with Iraq because of their Nationalism and desire to unite against ISIS.

Certainly there has been talk among Iraqi Sunni people about that.
And Shia too.. Kurds of course.


What do you mean (none / 0) (#25)
by lentinel on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:58:29 PM EST

when you talk about "Iraq" needing or not needing our help?

Are you talking about the government that is teetering on the brink of collapse - with the help of the US? Or are you talking of the government waiting to be installed with the help of the US?

Are you talking about the people of Iraq - or a segment of the people of Iraq?

Who, in your opinion, is "Iraq"?


That does appear to be the question (none / 0) (#32)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:48:10 PM EST

: That was (none / 0) (#38)
by lentinel on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:11:56 PM EST

in fact my question.

Screw them. Seriously (none / 0) (#46)
by Jack203 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:37:58 PM EST

We should never never never go to war to assist the Shiites again.

One major reason for our debacle in Iraq was that the Shiites were attacking us from behind even though we were giving them everything. We deposed the Sunni Ba'ath party, ruling class, control of the military and every department of government. We handed the country to the majority Shiites on a silver platter. And all they repaid us with is blood.

Then instead of a Democracy which Senor Bush was so gullible to think would work, the Shiites consolidated power and excluded the Sunnis.

At the end of the war, we were essentially a defacto police force suppressing the Sunni populated lands for the Shiites on our dime. And what did the Shiites give us in return. Zilch. Zero. Absolutely nothing. They have been owned by the Iranians from the get go. Instead of spending money rebuilding America's infrastructure and inner cities. We spent it helping the Shiites, who hate us for it.

It takes a fool of enormous magnitude to ever consider supporting the Shiites again. Therefore, cue up the neocons. The neocons are so stupid they want to 1. Attack Iran. 2. Go to war in behalf of Iran's largest vassal state.

I want nothing to do with Shiites. Ever again. No war for or against them.

Now we hear the Shiites whining that we shouldn't be helping the Kurds. Go to hell.

The Kurds are the exact opposite of the Shiites. True allies. Our soldiers and American citizens are perfectly safe in Kurdish lands. If ISIS thinks they are going to pick on their weaker countrymen. They better think again. What is it that Obama said....The wolf is back. He's right. The kind of war we CAN actually win is a conventional war. ISIS is not going to stand a chance. I just hope the offensive part of it ends with the dam. Then lets sit back and ISIS better never attack the Kurds again.